ghl_calendar_resource_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating the required OAuth scopes (calendars/resources.write), the specific endpoint, and the deprecation status. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is verbose and mixes version info, deprecation warnings, endpoint details, and OAuth scopes before stating the core purpose. The main action ('Update Calendar Resource') is buried in the middle. A more concise, front-loaded structure would improve clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description lacks information about the response or return value, which is important given there is no output schema. It does include deprecation and version context, but for a mutation tool, details on what the update returns (e.g., updated resource object) would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (id, resourceType, body). The description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Update Calendar Resource' and 'Update calendar resource by ID', making the verb and resource explicit. It distinguishes from sibling operations (create, get, list, delete) by specifying 'update'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides useful usage context: it notes the API version (2021-04-15), warns against using the deprecated v3 version for resource endpoints, and explicitly states the tool is deprecated with a suggestion to prefer a replacement if one exists. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling update tools or specify when-not-to-use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.